Should women be able to preach at mass and be deacons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
An option representing my view is absent from the poll, hence I’m not voting.

I think it is strange to ask whether we “should be able to do something”: It is to question God and is critiqued in Isaiah:
Woe to anyone who contends with their Maker;
a potsherd among potsherds of the earth!
Shall the clay say to the potter, “What are you doing?”
or, “What you are making has no handles”?
Our wisdom is finite; God’s is infinite. Hence, if you accept the reality of God, then to ask whether something lacking a capability now should have it is foolish indeed, or else vain: If it should have it, then it would already have it. If it should have it in the future, it will get it at that time.

Perhaps you meant to ask whether women should preach and “be given the title of pastor” etc. and didn’t really mean “be able to”. In other words, assuming they already have the capability and asking “should we let them” – but since that is not what you said, it seems not something I should respond to.
 
Being “numbered among the laity” is talking about seating position (in church at Mass) and whether or not you could enter the altar area (during Mass).

The Montanist ladies whom Tertullian mentions, Prisca and Maximilla, were notorious for announcing that they were not just prophetesses (normal for the early Church) and priestesses (not normal), but also living incarnations of the Holy Spirit, just like their leader Montanus. (They also happily proclaimed themselves to be possessed when they prophesied and did a lot of crazy things, which was directly against the Jewish and Christian traditions of prophecy as being dignified.) Montanus, for his part, also announced that the village of Pepuza, Phrygia was the New Jerusalem, and that all Christians throughout the world should move there. All three of them announced that their New Prophecy was intended to say all the stuff that Jesus didn’t say, and had more authority.

So yeah, these ladies are not a good example. They were nuts.

Moving along, the other major early Christian splinter group with priestesses were the few groups of Mary-worshippers, among whom were the Arabic Collyridians (women who offered bread or cakes to the “goddess” Mary, instead of the old-fashioned raisin cakes to Astarte), and the Tyropitans who added milk and cheese to the list of sacramental foods given at Mass.

To be fair, milk or curds used to be given to newly baptized or newly married Christians, in many traditions, as a non-sacramental Biblical reference. Often it was milk and honey. But the Tyropitans just took it way too far.

The third group with priestesses were some of the Gnostic sects. Most of them were not enthusiastic about having women around at all, since of course matter is dirty and bad, and women are full of matter and blood and the potential to become pregnant. However, some Gnostics did like having women and their money around. The Gnostic Valentinus did recruit women into his group and had them serve as priestesses who passed around their Gnostic chalice, which was one of those “everflowing” magician props. Some Gnostic sects (the ones that figured that nothing you did in your nasty dirty body had any effect on the soul, and that experiencing lots of nastiness encouraged your pure clean soul to leave the material world faster) had the priestesses have sex with the male congregants. (Probably an adaptation of typical Middle Eastern temple prostitution.)

The only orthodox normal associations of women with the priesthood were the titles of “presbytera” (the wife of a married priest, as is still used today in the East), “presbyterissa” (the mom of a priest, who had special privileges), and “presbyteride” (a woman elder, like a deaconess, who rode herd over the women’s seating area). The presbyterides ended up being stamped out, because apparently some old church ladies were real jerks once they actually had an eensy bit of authority and not just officiousness.
 
What about the fact that this notion of only priests and deacons can preach originated in the 13th century and does not reflect the ways of the first millennium?
Do you have any sources that the Church allowed the laity to give the homily prior to the thirteenth century?
 
I often wonder what our societies would be like if women were allowed to be spiritual mothers (priestess/deaconess) along side spiritual fathers (priest/deacon).
 
What about the fact that this notion of only priests and deacons can preach originated in the 13th century and does not reflect the ways of the first millennium?
The 13th century change, in large part due to the influence of St. Dominic, was actually a lax in the rules: before only Bishops formally, and priests and monks local Bishops specifically granted permission to, were allowed to preach, at least in the West.

Remember, my argument doesn’t reject that laymen and non-ordained religious (which includes women by default) can’t preach outside the Liturgy. My argument is:

…that the Homily ought to be performed by the Ordained, because the Homily itself is the part of the whole ritual of the Mass, and,

…that the Ordained, including deacons, are acting as Christ, and so must be male (and this argument is presented numerously elsewhere).

Another argument against not “female deacons” per se but rather the current movement for their acceptance is that the movement is based on the ideology of feminism, which is incompatible with Christ’s teaching. Why should we follow whims that are based on a rejection of Church teaching?

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
What do you mean, “if women were allowed to be spiritual mothers”?

Seriously? You never met a nun or a church lady?

Look. One of the points of how women run society is that unlike men, women don’t have a hierarchy with clear dominance; they have a pecking order. So women don’t wait around for someone to appoint them to have certain powers, because that would be admitting that somebody else has power over them!

(Except for the sort of women who are cowardly or bureaucratic in mindset, and thus want a bully of official power to stand behind them.)

Women in the Church have historically done whatever the heck they want to do, and can get away with. It usually falls to other women, or to men, to pull them back from doing imprudent things; but if the stuff they’re doing is prudent, they can tear along for a really long time without being seriously discommoded, or needing any permission.

Similarly, women don’t wait around for Mass and homily time to preach and teach their point of view. They have a bully pulpit with their family, friends, and neighbors, which is only opposed by other women among their family, friends, and neighbors preaching back at them.

A woman who takes an official position in the Church, like an abbess, has actually narrowed her scope of teaching, preaching, and acting. She has to follow rules and regulations, and carefully preserve the rights of other people under her rule. Meanwhile, your mom and my mom are doing whatever they feel is right, without worrying about strict legality or forms or any of that junk.

So let’s be realistic, here. And if we’re quoting Paul, let’s remember how he said that Timothy got his Christianity from his mom Eunice and his grandma Lois.
 
Just for everyone to see, here is a recent online article about this topic:

cruxnow.com/church/2016/03/02/vatican-newspaper-essays-say-women-should-preach-at-mass/

in the article, there are some parts such as
The argument for a change is not that it is “modernizing” the Church, but rather that it is returning to the tradition of the first thousand years of Christianity, when, as Bianchi and the other essayists note, women were regularly given permission to preach, and often did so in front of priests, bishops, and even the pope.
In the early 13th century, as part of the movement toward consolidating Church power in the papacy and the clergy, Pope Gregory IX effectively barred lay people — both men and women — from preaching, especially on theological or doctrinal matters that were considered the province of educated clerics.
in 1973, the Vatican gave the German bishops permission to allow lay people, most of them women, to preach with special permission for an experimental eight-year period.
But the election of St. John Paul II, a doctrinally conservative pope, in 1978 launched a period of stricter bans.
I can understand how this whole article could be very confusing to the ill-formed catholic. The first sentence is a doozy
A series of essays in the semi-official Vatican newspaper
What the heck is semi-official? It’s either official or its not!
 
I voted no due to misreading the question. I should have voted yes, and would change my vote if I could. Here’s why:

The homily is pretty negotiable; from experience, I’ve heard/sat through some of the most useless tripe imaginable, in what has passed for ‘the homily.’ I’ve sat through politically charged [stuff] that was both offensive, and quite frankly, calling for politics that were objectively offensive to political guidance given by the USCCB (e.g.–a priest preaching to support the Dem. candidates due to their position on labor issues–notwithstanding their overt support of abortion).

So, not being able to imagine any women possibly being capable of delivering worse homilies than what I’ve already witnessed/endured, and realizing that–unlike protestant services–the homily is actually a pretty minor part of the mass–I can think of no reason not to permit women (or other lay folks) from giving the homily.

The only caveat would be that a draft/outline be submitted to the Pastor (or his designee) for review and approval. That would probably actually result in an overall improvement on the Homily (in general) than what I get as standard fair at my parish (or most any of the local parishes I frequent).

What’s more, in today’s world, we get to read the meditations from the Vatican; from the USCCB; from our diocese; from several other places as well–on line, or otherwise–which can insure that the purpose of the Homily is met–while opening up the Homily at the local level, to multiple members or classes within the parish–would most likely be benign, and quite possibly very enriching.

fwiw/jmho.
 
No! The first sacrifice of the Mass was administered by a Man and that Man ordained only men to continue it.
PREACH or become a DEACONESS
NOT BE ORDAINED TO THE PRIESTHOOD

The EARLY CHURCH had women deaconesses, even if not ordained.
The first millennium of Christianity apparently also allowed women to have preaching roles at Mass.

I am not at all talking about ORDINATION of women.

And seeing that the early Church both had women “deacons” and was more lax on allowing women, or at least lay people, to preach, I don’t see why women should not be able to do so today.
 
The answer to this first part (about preaching) must clearly be in the negative, per the words of the Holy Spirit speaking through St. Paul: “As in all the churches of the holy ones, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.” (1 Cor. 14:33-35).
Surely this passage must be read within its cultural context, and not as an objective, universal restriction, or else women could also not be lectors.
 
Wow, OK, I didn’t see this post before. Where did you get that from? If anything, the council of Nicea, from much before the 13th century, already settled this issue. :confused:

shamelesspopery.com/does-the-council-of-nicea-reject-womens-ordination-to-the-diaconate/
I got it from the Vatican newspaper’s article that said the restriction of preaching to the ordained priesthood was an effort to consolidate certain powers in the church hierarchy of the 13th century.

Other than than, I have not looked into the sources.
 
I’m glad the op tacked on…‘and be deacons’… because that of course would be a step to what is the real intention of those liberals who constantly bring up the issue…women ‘priests’.

Notice that the question is never asked…‘why the laity can not preach during Mass?’ Not as emotional inducing. 🙂
I’m not talking about ORDINATION…

I am referring to a particular role that women had in the early church, and it continued in various Eastern churches, known as a deaconess.
 
I’m not talking about ORDINATION…

I am referring to a particular role that women had in the early church, and it continued in various Eastern churches, known as a deaconess.
These are separate posts than deacons, though. A deacon is an ordained minister who has received Holy Orders. A deaconess is not. Hence the confusion.
 
The Apostle Paul (I Tim. 2:11-14) said, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”

To the church at Corinth he said (I Cor. 14:34), “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak.” The spiritual order is explained in I Cor. 11:3, and it is explicitly set forth as: 1- God the Father, 2- Christ, 3- man, 4- woman.
Then I guess women can’t be lectors or cantors, or teach RCIA, or lead youth ministries, or speak at retreats, or give apologetics talks to men.

:confused:🤷
 
These are separate posts than deacons, though. A deacon is an ordained minister who has received Holy Orders. A deaconess is not. Hence the confusion.
I should have been more specific in my opening post, but usually in Catholic talk, “deaconess” or “women deacon” is often talking about the issue whether or not the Church should bring back some form of this role.
 
What the heck is semi-official? It’s either official or its not!
Semi-official is exactly the correct term for L’Osservatore Romano. It is not an official publication of the Holy See as the Acta Apostolicae Sedis is but as its articles are cleared by the Holy See and it is what the Holy Father and the dicasteries use to communicate timely articles and information and it is housed in Vatican City, it is indeed “semi-official.”
 
I came up with this poll/thread in reflection of the other one I had created on the theology of the male priesthood. It’s not as if women aren’t as good preachers, teachers, or aren’t as “pastoral” as men. It’s the fact that the priest acts in persona Christi and so represents Christ as man sacramentally, symbolically. This is how I always understood it. But from many responses both in this thread and the other one, I have read many responses dealing with (1) subordination of women to men and (2) NT passages referring to how women are to be silent in church. Now, I had always thought that the “subordination” and “silence” of women mentioned in the New Testament are cultural in nature. It’s not very hard to see how that culture was a patriarchal society with certain assumptions. This doesn’t take a way from the Inspired nature of Sacred Scripture, in my understanding; rather, we have to interpret such passages appropriately.

But the reasoning I have been seeing from many replies so far troubles me and does seem more “out-of-date,” in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top